The Official Paul Tomkins Thread

TOMKINS: STYLE AND SUBSTANCE
Paul Tomkins 21 April 2008

There seems to be a general perception amid football fans at large that Benítez is a defensive coach, and that the Reds are boring to watch.

The trouble in football is that perceptions are quickly established, and are slow to be overturned. At first, like any manager, Benítez sorted the defence. You can't play good football and win games if your defence is a mess. Does that mean he's a defensive coach, just because he started the task that way? It was the same at Valencia –– they won their first league title under him with very few goals scored, but two seasons later they were far more prolific.
 
I always argue that you need to watch a team every game (whether there in person or on TV) or as close as possible to know it properly; catching highlights or the odd game here or there is not enough, especially when too many journalists and commentators reinforce their own stereotypical views from such fractured exposures. Most of my views about other clubs are similarly formed –– on glimpses –– but when it comes to Liverpool, I choose to specialise, and try to keep a sharp focus.
 
Misconceptions are rife. Even now, Benítez is portrayed as the only manager to make lots of changes, and yet while he's made a fraction more than his rivals, there is little to choose between Liverpool, Man United and Chelsea in terms of rotation –– with the three managers averaging between 3 and 3.3 changes per league game. (And that includes injuries, something Liverpool have suffered more this season than United.) Also, a higher percentage of Liverpool's changes have understandably come in recent weeks, too, for obvious reasons.
 
The odd one out is Wenger, who has made less than two league changes on average. And yet three teams have ended the season strong, and are still in contention for the major prizes, while one team tired dramatically and, yet again, saw its season over by late March/early April. Any guesses which? It may be partly coincidental, but then again, you can't help but think there might be something in it.
 
When Benítez sends out a changed team, he wants what he got at Arsenal and Fulham: good players, and mostly internationals, fighting for more regular football. It is not in any way, shape or form disrespecting the opposition or the competition; it's respecting players who are good enough to do a job. If they're not good enough, why are they in the Liverpool first team squad? And how many of these players would Sheffield United or Fulham want? Quite a few, I'd imagine.
 
Whatever the decisions a manager makes, things can always go either way. Playing a strong team in a game that is not crucial, with an infinitely more important game a few days later, can lead to players trying to conserve their energy and half-hearted in big tackles. You can end up with them tired, or injured.
 
Sometimes you can get more out of a 'weaker' team with a lot to prove and far fresher legs. Of course, that side may lack world-class match-winners, and be more disjointed. But it's a trade-off. Either way you're not likely to get a sublime performance, on the eve of such a big game, but you might be as likely to get a result. And at Fulham, Liverpool were surprisingly cohesive, and deserved winners.
 
The fact is that Liverpool got the best away result away against Arsenal in Benítez's time with a side that, as at Fulham last year, contained eight changes and included a very promising youngster (Plessis this year, Insua last).
 
And while players like Paletta, Gonzalez, Sissoko, Bellamy and Fowler have moved on since the Fulham game last year, they were hardly unknown players; and if some of them were unknown to other managers, then that's their fault for being ignorant. Paletta is now doing well at Argentine giants Boca Juniors, and Gonzalez is once again excelling in La Liga. And of course, had Robbie Fowler not missed the easiest chance of his career, Liverpool would have surely not lost.
 
Benítez's methods are questioned more than those of any manager in the history of English football. Of course, visionaries in life –– be it in sport, art, music or politics –– tend to be more appreciated retrospectively, when their ideas have proven inspired and their influence can be traced. Vincent Van Gogh, Charles Darwin, Plato and Neil Warnock were all seen as crackpots. (Okay, so some don't exactly elevate themselves.)
 
If it's not Rafa's methods, it's his team's football. To me, this Liverpool side has style and substance.
 
Liverpool, despite still not putting away as many chances as they should have, particularly mid-season, have already scored 111 goals; Manchester United and Arsenal have only just passed the 100-mark, while Chelsea are yet to do so.
 
It's a case of Liverpool deploying winning football, and for the fourth season running the Reds face Chelsea in a semi-final (no-one seems to be mentioning the FA Cup victory, too). Will it be the fourth success, and the fifth final under Benítez, making three in the Champions League? If so, it will be a remarkable achievement.
 
Then there's the 'lucky' tag, that sprung up in 2001 and 2005 –– i.e. whenever the Reds had a great season. It's springing up again now. There's no denying that particularly bad luck can scupper any cup run, and that all successful teams need things to break their way at the right moment. For example, Inter Milan's red cards helped the Reds in both games. But no-one asked Marco Materazzi to go crashing into Torres from behind when already on a yellow.
 
It's precisely the kind of needless, thoughtless, self-destructive challenge Benítez has tried to stamp out from his players. He encourages players to tackle properly, because suspensions or playing with ten men only hinders you.
 
The reason Liverpool have so few red cards is because of discipline and composure, and if the opposition lose theirs, that's their problem and Liverpool's gain. Again, it's about having players with character and the right temperament.
 
Unlike the latter years under his predecessor, I've never had a problem with the football the Reds have played under Benítez. Yes, it's been scrappy at times when the team hasn't been in form, but that's true of pretty much all teams; the best ones win when not playing well, and the Reds have done that on a few occasions. There's still room to do it more often. But now Torres is fully settled, both he and Gerrard are capable of winning games when the team is below par. And there's nothing wrong with that.
 
I've always felt that Benítez has tried to get in technical players wherever possible, and play a passing game, albeit one that is not built around pretty triangles or messing around at the back. Indeed, in going for technical players he's ended up lacking a bit of pace at times, so last summer was about allying pace with skill, and, of course, a good mentality. Unlike some managers, he sees no shame in the long ball, when it's on. Again, why shouldn't he?
 
With players like Gerrard, Alonso, Aurelio and Agger –– and even Pepe Reina, who passes better than most defenders –– why shouldn't this side pass long? Players like Johnny Haynes, Glenn Hoddle and Jan Molby were feted for their ability to ping a ball long distances to feet, and it's a great ability to have. Even Arsenal now hit long to Adebayor too, and it was a tactic, after years of only passing through teams, that served them well until they recently lost their way.
 
The beauty of a Benítez team has always been in its balance, not in pure aesthetic charms. It's about having no discernible weaknesses, while being versatile enough to exploit the opposition's. For instance, Arsenal don't cope with tall strikers very well, so Peter Crouch always proves a great option against them –– so much so that Benítez changed a winning formula to exploit it.
 
Try and outrun Toure and Gallas and you'll often have a tough time; but a long clearance, and Crouch has them panicking. It's not always pleasing to the purists, but then again, Crouch can control a ball on any part of his body, as well as flicking it on, so it's not like he's some giant totem there just to ruffle feathers; he's a gifted footballer. Also, it's not as if the team spend 90 minutes lumping balls into the ‘mixer' for him –– although, of course, when others are low on confidence it's a more tempting option than when they feel able to run with the ball or pick a more astute pass to feet.
 
There should be no shame in winning ugly; all teams need to now and again. And at the business end of the season, when there is no margin for error, that's all you need. It's all I want against Chelsea; anything else is a bonus.
 
But boring and lacking style on the whole? You must be joking. There is style and there is substance, and in each year we're seeing an improvement in both.


More common sense from Mr Tomkins!!!

Another excellent read - if only other journalists would listen to this guy, there'd be less bad press (or blatant lies) going on about our club. Then again, there'd also be less papers sold too! 

It is true that on the website he is very positive. It was no coincedence that there was no artilce after the defeat to Barnsley. However in his books he does critises Houllier... so don't worry guys he is capable of critising. Yet as I have said before Rafa is one of the greatest manger in Europe and WILL go down as a legend once he leaves Liverpool ...Hopefully never so he is justified to laud praises on the man and on a great squad which we do have, its just needs a few extra players and we should be able to compete very soon. I am pleased people are buying the book becuase there are truly excellent insight, with such intersting analysis.

It is true that on the website he is very positive. It was no coincedence that there was no artilce after the defeat to Barnsley.

I think he's written loads of pieces after bad results, often saying things will soon turn for the better as the quality is there and the manager is top-class. And lo and behold, things do get better.

But as you say, on the website he's more positive than in his books.

TOMKINS: ROUGH JUSTICE
Paul Tomkins 23 April 2008 
  In football you don't always get what you deserve. Chelsea's only meaningful effort on goal was from a Liverpool player several minutes after the game should have ended, while at the other end, several stops from Petr Cech kept Chelsea's hopes alive. 

If the result, and the timing of the Chelsea goal, still frustrates me, then, as with last year's final, I can take heart from how much better Liverpool now are.
 
If you use the games themselves as markers of progress, and ignore the result, then you'll see a massive swing from 2005 to 2007, and again in 2008, in terms of how the Reds have dealt with AC Milan and Chelsea. In 2005 it was about hanging on for dear life, but in 2007 and 2008 it has been the Reds increasingly making the running.
 
Then there's the fact that after annual losses away at Arsenal, the Reds got two draws there last month. In the league, the Reds also drew away at Chelsea for the first time under Benítez, having shaded the game.
 
These are only indicators, but to me they are evidence of a side progressing. The only remaining bogey ground is Old Trafford. Stamford Bridge and the Emirates hold less fear now. In the games against the big sides, which was always seen as Benítez's undoing, Liverpool have looked more evenly matched against the opposition.
 
Liverpool are now a better football team than in 2005, and a better team than in 2006/07.
 
Indeed, and most crucial to my point, they are even a far better team than in the early months of this season.
 
Now that the new signings have settled, we can clearly see that. Torres was impressing in patches early on, but as an individual; now the whole attacking unit has a nice balance and an ever-blossoming understanding. Gerrard and Kuyt are linking particularly well on the right, for instance. Babel, meanwhile, should find greater consistency as he matures and adapts to the frenetic pace, but in the second half of the season has been more of a threat to the opposition.
 
Beyond next week's game, can the Reds take what has been learned since the turn of the year into next season? Improvements can always be made, and will be made, but I don't see too much wrong with the core of what's there right now. Add Daniel Agger to the equation, and have Alonso fit and sharp for the whole campaign, and there would be two big improvements already.
 
But recent changes and additions made by Benítez are already working out. Skrtel and Mascherano are proving real defensive Trojans. Torres and Babel offer cut and thrust, pace and skill, and on the right, in Dirk Kuyt, we are seeing an amazing transformation –– a player who will tackle and harry and get up and down the pitch like the very best wide midfielders (a different breed from ‘wingers'), but who has the instincts of a striker when he gets into the box. Crucially, he has the energy to mix both roles.
 
Against Chelsea he was superb yet again. And while the quantity of goals has been below what he would have hoped for in the last 12 months, there's no doubting the quality of opposition he's scored against: AC Milan, Arsenal, Inter Milan and Chelsea. Crucially, he's actually looking more prolific from the right wing.
 
Add two massive penalties away at Everton, and you can see that he is a man for the big occasion. And if he stays in the role next season, there should be further improvement, too, as he learns more about a position he first played at Utrecht as a youngster.
 
In the centre of midfield last night, Alonso and Mascherano were outstanding. And although Gerrard didn't get on the ball in dangerous areas as much as hoped, and Torres wasn't at his sharpest in front of goal, in addition to Babel having a slow start to the game, there were points in the match, mostly the 25 minutes either side of half-time, when every aspect of Benítez's team was working perfectly in tandem. It just couldn't make that domination pay.
 
Some might say that Chelsea are not as strong as in 2005, but they actually have more league points per-game under Avram Grant than Jose Mourinho managed. Grant took over with Chelsea stuttering under the Shy One.
 
But like most people, I've no idea just how good Grant is, because he's taken Mourinho's team, which is a mature and experienced one at that, and changed little, other than adding a £15m striker to the bench in Anelka. But clearly he's not a bad manager, as he's had too many good results, particularly when his team aren't playing well. However, it's a tad easier to manage when you pick virtually your strongest team, and have £108m of talent not included.
 
But whatever the state of Chelsea, this was the best Liverpool have played in any of the semi-finals; certainly on the balance of chances and employment of the keepers.
 
Liverpool's front two of Torres and Gerrard didn't have their best night, mainly because Chelsea had so many men behind the ball, but even so they forced Cech to earn his corn on a number of occasions. Desperate defending denied Alonso, and Babel's swerving shot was a fraction wide.
 
Let's be clear –– the refereeing was as bad as Cech was good. I've never seen a more blatant free-kick that wasn't given than when Ashley Cole took out Kuyt. Cole also pushed Kuyt in the box with both hands, and yet any time a Liverpool player went near Drogba, it was a free-kick, even if Drogba was the one backing in. Chelsea felt they should have had a penalty for Carragher's challenge on Drogba, but it looked like Carra got the slightest nick on the ball, and even then, it was outside the box.
 
But then Liverpool rarely get a decision against Chelsea. I don't think Liverpool have had a penalty against Chelsea in all 19 games under Benítez, despite pushes, trips and players punching the ball off the line. The famous decision the Reds did get –– Luis Garcia's shot crossing the line –– saved Chelsea from a red card and what would have been a penalty, which the ref admitted he was going to award. So they even got off lightly there.
 
Once the shock wears off, we'll come to realise what felt like a defeat was only a draw. And while Rafa will go looking for a win, a score draw is all that is needed next week to either take it into extra-time, or, if it's 2-2 or 3-3 (unlikely, perhaps), through to the final. I hated the home second-leg games against Chelsea (last season) and Arsenal because of the fear of conceding the away goal, but now it's Chelsea's problem to worry about.
 
It's more delicately poised than it feels. Chelsea now have that uncertainty that dogged Liverpool against Arsenal and made for such a nervous start. If the Reds can have the tie in their favour after 85 minutes at Stamford Bridge, as did Arsenal at Anfield, then I'd expect the Benítez's team to hang on better than the Gunners were able to.
 
As clear favourites, Chelsea will now have a lot of pressure to deal with. And Liverpool like being underdogs; every team does, because it's liberating. Stamford Bridge might actually be buzzing for once, with all the handed-out plastic flags, but it'll be an expectant, demanding crowd.
 
My main concern, however, is that Chelsea will feel like this is their year, after the timing of the goal, and the gifted nature of it. It's just a question of how their desperation to do what Liverpool did in ‘05 and ‘07 (and '77, ‘78 '81, '84 and '85) and get to a final affects their nerves, and how Liverpool, having already been there and done that, can relax and play their natural game.
 
Chelsea need the final more, as it's something they've yet to achieve, and something which is demanded after spending three times as much as Liverpool in recent seasons. When the desire to win becomes a desperation, it can inhibit players.
 
Chelsea's game against Manchester United is obviously another big factor in how they can afford to plan for Wednesday's game, and the psychological state they'll be in. But it wouldn't surprise me to see Chelsea field a stronger team against Liverpool than for the weekend's clash. And anyway, they've got such a large squad, they can afford to alter things and not be too weakened.
 
So whatever happens, I feel it's another marker in terms of progress on the pitch for Benítez's team. The gelling between system and personnel these past few months has been key; it just wasn't possible when the players were so new. There were some backwards steps in the first half of the season, but it was in order to take big strides forward.
 
Other signs of progress: how well the 'squad' team played away against Fulham and Arsenal –– in 2004/05 and 2006/07 the Reds couldn't get away results with the best XI; the back-to-back Youth Cup successes of 2006 and 2007; and the incredible achievement of a teenage reserve side that walked its league.
 
So with that in mind, there is plenty to be optimistic about, even if, for the first time under Benítez, the season ends as early as the last day of April.

Paul Tomkins is a legend! I think he has a great way of assessing the game and tells it word for word how it is.  Class.

Paul Tomkins is a legend! I think he has a great way of assessing the game and tells it word for word how it is.  Class.

Yeah, every time I read one of his articles I want to give him a +1 on the "rate this poster"!

Always a great read!

Bit biased, but spot on, there's so much to look forward to under Rafa with this team.

SILVER LININGS ABOUND
Paul Tomkins 01 May 2008

Everything in life has a silver lining. Even the worst things imaginable, providing they are survived, can make you stronger, or more humble, or more appreciative.

Liverpool may end the season empty-handed, but have shown the guts and determination to try and rescue lost causes, right from the fourth game of the group stage onwards when the most remarkable escape act was undertaken. And, of course, there's been no little quality too. Goals have been in plentiful supply, and it's been a memorable campaign that was alive until the 120th minute of the semi-final second-leg.
 
In football, you have to take the rough with the smooth. Character is borne from setbacks, whether deserved or not. As with last year, I don't think a potential Champions League Final against Manchester United was what this relatively young team needed right now in terms of its development. I know a lot of fans feel the same, but of course, no Red wanted anything other than a Liverpool win once the semi-final kicked off.
 
It's not that I think United's recent record against Liverpool, and the fact that they're ahead in terms of team development, made them massive favourites; for a game like that it had to be 50-50.
 
After all, Benítez had won the only cup game against United, back in 2006, and Liverpool have a better psychological air in the Champions League. But it would have been too big a game –– the biggest club game Europe has ever seen; I said the same a year ago when the possibility was on the horizon. Liverpool have improved since then, but United are still the older, more experienced and more expensively-assembled side.
 
It would have been 50-50 odds, but like in a game of Russian roulette with three bullets in six chambers –– an especially apt metaphor, given the location of the final. United fans weren't keen on the idea either, but at least they had the league title in the bag as something to fall back on.
 
They could bounce back more easily from losing the final, and as things stand, Liverpool, I feel, can bounce back more easily from losing the semi-final than had defeat occurred in Russia. But it wasn't to be.
 
The law of averages suggested Chelsea had to win a semi-final against Liverpool sooner or later. The first goal is always crucial, and that it was offside in the build-up is irritating but par for the course of rubbish decisions when Liverpool play Chelsea. Even the one decision Chelsea feel they were cheated out of, in 2005, saved them from conceding a penalty and having Cech sent off. (The ref that night seems to be the only person outside of Liverpool fans who acknowledges this.)
 
The two decisions involving Sami Hyypia summed up Liverpool's luck with officials in games against Chelsea –– the Finn gave away a blatant penalty (no arguments there) but won an equally blatant one, too. Or rather, he would have had the referee not bottled it, putting his whistle to his lips but mysteriously changing his mind.
 
At least the officials rightly struck off Essien's goal, with a player jumping up and down in front of Reina as one of four offside players. If these type of offences aren't offside, as with the one at the weekend at Birmingham, then the law is an absolute joke.
 
Liverpool also had the worse luck with injuries, losing defenders in both games. So everything went against the Reds.
 
I have to say that didn't agree with Rafa's tactic of singling out Drogba for criticism, even though I totally agreed with the sentiment over the way such a powerful player can be strong when he wants to be, but when the defenders stand up to him with equal force, as they have to, he crumples like an aneamic anorexic. But Drogba would have been fired up for this one either way.
 
So overall I'm disappointed –– but not disheartened; far from it. I look for the positives, the signs of progress, as a matter of course. There's been plenty this season; alas, other teams are progressing too, and you can't do anything about that. I'm sure Rafa would love to be able to buy players like Anelka for £15m in the middle of the season, just to use them from the bench. But how many managers have such a luxury?
 
This season Liverpool have scored far more goals than in recent years (116 so far), but on the whole not without sacrificing defensive stability. Progress. Six players have got into double figures, and I can't recall the last time that happened. Again, progress. The overall balance of the side is very strong, and as with last summer the right additions can take the team up another level; unlike last summer, the project is that bit nearer completion. But there's still room for improvement in a couple of positions, and in the overall depth of the squad.
 
What Benítez has done is create a side that never says die; this team has come from behind to win key games ever since he arrived –– Olympiacos, Luton, AC Milan, and most recently, Arsenal –– and defensive or one-dimensional teams don't do that. It gave every last ounce of effort at Stamford Bridge, and over the two games Petr Cech had the more meaningful saves to make.
 
Unfortunately, one newspaper piece this morning read: "After four seasons under Benítez Liverpool are no closer to Chelsea, Manchester United and Arsenal in the league than they were in 2004 when Gérard Houllier left Anfield."
 
I respect the author, having known him a few years ago, but this is utter tripe, as was the suggestion that Benítez is still living off Istanbul. The gap was 30 points in 2004, and 21 points last season. Currently it's down to 11 points. How is that being 'no closer' to the other three big clubs? I'm no mathematician, but even I can spot a closing gap. Over the past three seasons, Liverpool have accrued more league points than Arsenal, lest we forget.
 
Meanwhile, the gap to fifth has been extended, with three good away results recently secured with a 'squad' team. Again, more signs of progress.
 
As a result, Liverpool are comfortably established within the top four, something that wasn't the case four/five years ago. But the challenge to win the title remains an immense one, given that the other three teams are also especially strong, particularly the top two with their far greater riches.
 
The Reds didn't lose to either Chelsea or Arsenal in the league, or to either London side over 90 minutes in four Champions League games (defeat to Chelsea came in extra-time, and in the League Cup which is now a virtual reserves competition). That's eight meaningful games of parity between Liverpool and two clubs who were miles ahead when Benítez arrived. Manchester United still have the upper hand in head-to-heads, but a bit more luck for Liverpool at Anfield and that will deservedly change.
 
I've mentioned the success of the Reds' youth and reserve teams a few times lately, but that's all part of the overall improvement; it took both Ferguson and Wenger years to get their systems right before players started filtering through to the first team, so Benítez and his staff have done an excellent job in this respect. I'd expect journalists to pay some kind of attention to all the work a manager does, particularly laying foundations.
 
Six of this season's signings –– Torres, Babel, Benayoun, Skrtel, Lucas, and the now permanently-signed Mascherano –– have all added new dimensions, with each looking a very astute buy; the average age of that sextet is just 23. Voronin and Leto haven't quite worked out as yet, for a number of reasons including injury, but neither is a bad player. Also, a number of teenagers have featured in the first team in the league this season.
 
And all this during another European season that was very, very good, and fell just a fraction short of being excellent. But it's more experience to bank, more victories against top sides on the way to almost making a third final in four seasons.
 
Regardless of who wins this year's final, no team in Europe has a better Champions League record than the Liverpool manager in Benítez's four years –– the Reds are joint-best with AC Milan, who have also won one of two finals, reached one further semi-final, and fallen at the last-16 stage since Benítez took charge.
 
If that's not progress for a club ailing in the UEFA Cup in 2003/04, I am utterly at a loss to suggest what is.

he always manages to lift my spirits

Excellent read that, read it earlier on the official site!

I think it's basically how we all feel. The lads haven't let us down at all, but we're showing an immense amount of promise for the seasons to come!

Excellent read that, read it earlier on the official site!

I think it's basically how we all feel. The lads haven't let us down at all, but we're showing an immense amount of promise for the seasons to come!

I think if you add Daniel Agger to the equation next season, assuming all is well, and that's already like one major signing who doesn't need to settle in.

I think if you add Daniel Agger to the equation next season, assuming all is well, and that's already like one major signing who doesn't need to settle in.

Very true. Fingers crossed those metatarsals hold up!

we will have a squad extremely capable of mounting a challange for the title next season, just think about it. we are really only a few quality signings away from a perfect team so once all the deadwood leaves this summer things will be a lot smoother next season. providing nothing happens again off the pitch and we get the signings rafa wants.

skrtel, agger, hyypia, arbeloa, aurelio, carra, finnan, and degen plus god knows who else he wants to sign for the defence and we have a SOLID walll at the back. can you imagine just how good skrtel and agger are going to be when they pair up?

the future looks red ladys and gents! 

He always manages to put a shine on any situation. This time, I don't think he's being overly biased and has hit the nail on the head. We've got a lot to look forward to in the coming years....

Paul Tomkins would attempt to sell sand to an Arab with his lyrical prose but it doesn't change the reality of our league position or 2nd trophyless season.

He claims we have made progress in the league this season by being nearer to the top than last season. Does he totally put his head up his arse to the fact that 2 years ago under Benitez we were on 82 points in 3rd place only one point behind ManUre? 2 years later despite spending as much in those 2 years ManUre have left us in their wake. That's regression in the league, not progression, which unfortunately Benitez's propoganda man "Joseph Tomkins Goebbels" tries to hide.

But let the blind swallow what they will.

Yet another great column from the man. This one i really enjoyed.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG159906080513-1135.htmhttp://


TOMKINS: HOW CAN WE OVERTAKE MAN UTD?
Paul Tomkins 13 May 2008 


Just how good Liverpool should be doing in the league is a very complex issue, and clearly an emotive one, too. 


 
Perhaps it's confusing as there are two separate issues that converge. First, there is the improvement of Liverpool. Secondly, there is the state of rival clubs. And any Liverpool manager can only affect the former.
 
In researching and writing my next book, Dynasty, I've been going back over the past 50 years of Liverpool FC, to find out how each manager achieved what he did.
 
The key thing for me is not counting trophies (although that's relevant), but discovering the context of each man's achievement or, in some cases, failure. What situation did he inherit? How strong was the opposition? Did he improve upon what he inherited? How much did he spend compared with his rivals? How successful were his signings, in terms of quality and value for money? And so on, analysing umpteen different criteria to make the assessments as detailed and accurate as possible.
 
But as much as anything, it's about learning how a great club is built up in order to challenge for titles, as well as the mistakes that meant by 1992, just two years after landing an 18th league title, Liverpool had fallen such a long way from the summit.
 
In particular, it's been fascinating going over many different accounts of how Shankly got the ball rolling to start with: the birth of modern Liverpool. Without comparing the two men, as there are numerous differences, there are however a lot of parallels between what Shanks did and what Benítez is now attempting.
 
Shankly started from a lower position, so in that sense it was harder for him. But Benítez is working in an age where more is demanded, particularly because of expectations initially raised by Shankly himself. So in that sense it's harder for him.
 
Both men missed out on early targets deemed too expensive, but both eventually had far stronger squads four years into their reign, concentrating particularly on the spine of the team.
 
Both bought a few duds –– like Wenger and Ferguson, and pretty much every other manager. For me, a manager who gets 50% of his signings spot-on has a special gift, and I feel Benítez and Shankly fall into this category.
 
For Shankly, things really kicked off with the signing two 23-year-olds, one attacking, one defensive. Ian St John and Ron Yeats were the exact same age as Torres and Mascherano were at the start of this season.
 
Each manager worked with strong philosophies and each innovated, both tactically and regarding fitness; the latter achieved with the ball involved more in training than it previously had been.
 
Character was important to both men. Shankly used to let apprentices go if they didn't scrub the floors with gusto; often, less talented kids who put their all into it were given contracts at the expense of more talented individuals. Both men bought skilful players, but not 'fancy Dans' who played for themselves; they had to also have a good attitude and work for the team.
 
Uphill Task
 
However, for Liverpool to achieve what we all now dream of, and overtake Manchester United, we need to look at how United managed to overtake Liverpool, back in 1992. And the sad fact is, Liverpool fell away themselves rather than United overtaking them. United slowly started to improve season on season, but only from the fifth year of Ferguson's reign onwards.
 
Look at it like a 4 x 400m relay race. Barring accident or injury, you can only close so much of the gap on each leg if you're racing top athletes. And what if those top athletes have a massive head start?
 
If Ferguson was trailing Dalglish by some distance from 1986 to 1990, and unable to find impetus to even remotely close the gap, then the awful tragedy of Hillsborough was what tripped King Kenny. Dalglish was still ahead when he handed over the baton to Souness in 1991, but vital ground and momentum had been lost.
 
Had Kenny Dalglish not understandably lost his way following the horrific events of April 1989, things might well have been different. Dalglish had been a sublime manager until that point, buying countless supreme footballers, such as Barnes, Beardsley, Aldridge, McMahon and Rush. Afterwards, it was a case of Carter, Speedie and Rosenthal. Maybe he didn't have the heart to move on ageing stars who had been his team-mates and friends half a decade earlier, or maybe he lost the heart to do so after they became even closer as a 'family' following the nightmare of Sheffield.
 
An ageing side was rightly dismantled by Souness, but unfortunately not in the right manner; he sold many of the better players who were still in good shape –– Beardsley and Houghton, plus a young Staunton –– and replaced them with some terribly substandard players. And so the empire came crashing down.
 
Had Souness been half as good a manager as he was player, Liverpool would have most likely kept Ferguson at bay, perhaps to the point where United's board lost patience. Equally, had Ferguson been facing a team like Paisley-era Liverpool in the early '90s, I doubt he'd have got close to overtaking them.
 
From 1994 onwards, every Liverpool manager took charge from a position of weakness; the opposite of Paisley, Fagan and Dalglish, who took control from a position of strength and, at times, outright domination. Returning to the earlier analogy, smooth baton changes with 70-metre advantages were a thing of the past; Souness, with the pack gaining on him, dropped the baton, and now it was United who had the momentum.
 
In a strange symmetry, Liverpool's dynasty, built by Shankly in the early '60s, was precipitated by another footballing tragedy. Sir Matt Busby's United side was clearly set back a number of years by the Munich air crash, which killed eight players. Had United still possessed players like Duncan Edwards in 1964, Liverpool might never have won that absolutely vital title. Shankly's side would still have been great, but there was a chance it might not have landed that crucial first honour, which is always the hardest.
 
Ferguson was an experienced manager when he arrived at Old Trafford, with a decade as a boss –– the same as Benítez, who was also 44 when he took over at Anfield. Both clubs –– the country's two biggest –– had gone at least a decade-and-a-half without the league title, so the pressure was incredibly intense. Both clubs were averaging around 4th spot in the five years before each man pitched up. So the challenges were virtually identical.
 
In relative terms, Ferguson spent bigger than Benítez in his first four years. And yet for three of those first four years United were marooned in the bottom half of the table. Ferguson made a lot of astute but expensive signings in 1988 and 1989 (Bruce, Pallister, Ince), but those players only delivered a league title in 1993. Irrespective of era, teams take time to gel; Shankly's was the same.
 
You need the first title to instil confidence and create a mythology. While Liverpool haven't won the Champions League since Benítez's first season, the Reds have actually played far better on the whole, and progressed to the latter stages on two further occasions –– therefore challenging for that title –– partly because of the mythology that inhibits the opposition and partly the belief that bolsters the Reds.
 
Would Ferguson have been able to create his league mythology and rid the 26-year, 26-ton millstone had a team like Chelsea been on the scene then, with the ability to buy the marquee players of the day like Diego Maradona, Michael Laudrup and Marco van Basten (while, say, unsettling United's Bryan Robson in the process), and whose new owner had installed a canny manager like Fabio Capello? Who knows, as it's pure supposition. But equally, as a guess, I doubt it.
 
And would Ferguson have been able to overtake an über-rich new rival in the early '90s as well as Liverpool, had the Anfield empire (the equivalent of United now) not self-destructed? Again, as a guess, I doubt it.
 
Ferguson's path to the title was far clearer in the early '90s than Benítez's is now. Arsenal had been doing well under George Graham, but his days were numbered with the bung scandal. And the Gunners were already falling away to mid-table mediocrity by the end of 1993.
 
Fortunately for Arsenal, they got Arsene Wenger in 1996, within two years of Graham's dismissal, and although Wenger won a double almost immediately, he went four years until his next trophy. And by the time Wenger had arrived, United had ended their wait. That crucial first title had been followed by more.
 
In 1992, Leeds won the league with United 2nd. But then, almost unthinkably, Leeds sold their star player (Eric Cantona) to their hated Pennines rivals for pittance. Even now, it is one of the craziest deals ever; fair play to Ferguson for pulling it off, though. It would be like United handing Liverpool Ronaldo for £10m.
 
Even Wenger's path to a first league title was relatively easy. The managers of the day were Gianluca Vialli, Ruud Gullit, David O'Leary, and at Liverpool, Roy Evans, a great servant for the club, but a rookie manager who was perhaps better suited to a support role. Indeed, they were all complete rookies. None of these managers went on to have successful careers. Meanwhile, two powerful, expensive teams of the mid-'90s, Newcastle and Blackburn, lost their managers and swiftly imploded.
 
So for Arsenal, it was 'relatively' easy, and they won the league with just 78 points. But then you had Chelsea's emergence as a force in 2003, when Roman Abramovich arrived. Since 2005, Arsenal, who were always 1st or 2nd under Wenger, have not finished above 3rd.
 
Mourinho arrived in 2004 and took Chelsea, who'd spent £110m (net!) in 2003/04, to the next level, but he skipped the normal process of gradually building a team –– he could afford to buy big, big, big, in terms of quality and quantity. Even then, Mourinho inherited an expensive, improving team that finished 2nd with 79 points and were beaten Champions League semi-finalists.
 
Mourinho's spent £239m gross, £162m net. Even now, with an extra year in charge, Benítez has spent less than £80m net. For someone as respected as Ronnie Whelan to say "Mourinho spent the same amount of money as Rafa" is ill-researched, dangerously misleading in the extreme and hugely disappointing.
 
Avram Grant, who is doing a fine job, hasn't had to change anything. He hasn't altered the tactics or the personnel. He received his baton in a great position.
 
But how did Benítez receive his baton?
 
In 2004, Liverpool had just been fairly embarrassed in the UEFA Cup, having finished 5th the season before, and scraped 4th, with 60 points, in time for his arrival. Michael Owen, the team's only guarantee of goals and a player worth many points in a season, opted to leave, and for a very small fee, having let his contract run down (for which you could either blame him, or blame Houllier for not building a team to which Owen wanted to commit his future). Another top player was Harry Kewell, but he just couldn't stay fit.
 
So without Owen and a fit Kewell, Houllier's legacy was actually closer to a 45-point team. Crucially, it lacked any great teenage talents akin to Fabregas and Ronaldo in the pipeline. Meanwhile, out of only seven top-class players (in my view) from a squad of 30 in 2004, Hamann and Hyypia were already 31. Owen was gone, Kewell always injured, and Hamann and Hyypia were in the twilight of their careers. That left just Gerrard, Carragher and Finnan as long-term hopes.
 
Without doubt, in 2004 Liverpool were a long way behind Arsenal, United and Chelsea; almost to the point of those rivals being a lap ahead. Ferguson, rightly, now believes this is his strongest ever team, and yet it was already 60% complete by the time Benítez got started.
 
Without an unprecedented war-chest, you can no longer make massive jumps at the top level of football. If Chelsea spent £300m net in a short space of time to cut corners, it would take £500m, spent wisely, to overtake them as quickly. Without silly money, you can only try and close the gap with good management.
 
All a manager like Benítez can do is build steadily towards sensible aims, making improvements where possible, step by step. Has he done this? For me, he has. Unquestionably. But some of it takes time to bear fruit.
 
Strengthen the defence? Check. Improve the squad year-on-year? Check. Improve every department of the first XI, from keeper through to striker? Check. Overhaul the youth system? Check. Improve scouting? Check. Make the reserves more competitive? Check. Create a first team whose age means it can stay together for years and improve with experience? Check. Buy the best attacking players possible within the budget? Check. Improve in Europe? Check.
 
And improve in the league? Check.
 
In 2006, Liverpool won its second-highest ever percentage of league games on the way to 82 points, the best tally since 1988. This year, the Reds lost just four times –– again, the best figures since 1988. Clean sheet records have been broken, and the club finally has a 25-goal-a-season striker. What's missing is gold-dust of all these improvements occurring simultaneously, combined with enough weaknesses in the top rivals to leave a gap to move into.
 
Benítez cannot control the latter, but the aim is to be as hard to beat while turning draws into wins –– something that's happened since February, so it can be done. You can't dismiss slumps during any season, but this year's had some unusual and well-known mitigating circumstances, and also included the departure of Pako Ayestaran, that will at least have caused some disruption at the time.
 
Short of Ferguson being replaced by Neil Warnock, Arsene Wenger switching to manage Arsenal ladies and Roman Abramovich donating his wealth to a short-sighted squirrel sanctuary, all Benítez can do is continue to steadily improve this young team. After that, we can only wait and see.

I read that one on the official site earlier, excellent read and puts everything into perspective, he always makes me feel better!

which unfortunately Benitez's propoganda man "Joseph Tomkins Goebbels" tries to hide.

That's F***ing scandalous and if I were Paul Tomkins I'd be suing you right now. I may even inform him by email.

To liken anyone writing about football to a Nazi war criminal is as low as it gets. People have successfully sued for being likened to Nazis online.

                                (  Benitez's propaganda man "Joseph Tomkins Goebbels" )
Bet you wear Dr Martins and you have a tattoo of the swastika printed on your head and don't tell me you would like to go back to the days of street fighting man. What baloney you speak....
 

I read that one on the official site earlier, excellent read and puts everything into perspective, he always makes me feel better!

I agree. After a loss or when things aren't going the way we want it, i always look out for his columns. He knows so much, and always comes up with something that can cheer you up and give you some sort of hope.

The latest bit of interesting reading:

SUMMER SIGNINGS AND SEASONAL INSANITY
 
Last summer I had quite a few emails about Fernando Torres, mainly from concerned fans feeling he was overrated and not the prolific striker the Reds needed. A big mistake, they said.

So in response I wrote about Thierry Henry and Alan Shearer, and how, by the age of 22/23, they had been scoring at a rate of only one goal every five games. They then moved to the right club for them, and before long were averaging a goal every game and a half. While a player may be a natural finisher, he still needs the right setting to flourish.
 
To be honest, I didn't expect Torres to succeed to quite as much as he has. But I agree with John Aldridge –– I can't see him suffering Second Season Syndrome. Some have said that Torres will struggle next season because defenders will know him better. If anything, he will know them better. He has no apparent weaknesses; most defenders do. And he will find them.
 
Chelsea and Arsenal had plenty of chances to see him this season, and yet he scored in his 4th game against Arsenal and his 1st and 4th games against Chelsea. He has scored far more goals in the second fixtures against Premiership teams than he did in his first.
 
His first and last goals of the season –– against Chelsea and Spurs –– sum up his unpredictability. He gets defenders square on, then can take it past them either way. In these occasions he went left; on others, he'll go right. With his pace, he can go past entire defences. Add to that that he can score from 30 yards or from headers or from volleys or with poached finishes (though he can improve here), and you have a player who is never going to be easy to stop.
 
To score 33 goals without a single penalty is remarkable. Shearer, Owen, Van Nistelrooy, Ronaldo and Henry all boosted their tallies with spot-kicks.
 
The one problem Torres does face is increased expectation. Now fans expect him to score every time he pulls on a red shirt. What he's yet to experience is the dry spell every striker encounters, while the sheer unexpected euphoria of this season may be lacking next time around. But having only just turned 24, and only having adjusted fully to the Premiership in the last five months, he can get better and score even more goals.
 
I tend to defend most signings as a matter of course; I can usually see the picture of what the manager is trying to do. And he is the one utilising the player, not me. In the case of Torres, I was particularly confident of his quality, but you have to remain open-minded whoever it is.
 
Of course, any number of reasons can stop that vision coming to fruition –– loss of form; adapting to a new club and possibly a new league; serious injury, and so on.
 
But I'm always more interested in judging how someone does for Liverpool, while allowing for a period of adaptation, rather than damning someone for what they did previously and then turning on them after the first couple of games.
 
I work from the basis that the manager knows a lot more than me and pretty much every last fan out there. The scouts know a lot more, too. All of them have seen the player in question more than me, and will have extensively studied his game, and possibly his lifestyle, temperament, etc, as well.
 
The manager knows exactly how the player will be deployed, and may have an idea how to get the best of them (i.e. Wenger signing Henry who was playing poorly on the wing for Juvenus and reverting him to a striker). He will be looking to see what he can bring out of a player, and how said player can adapt his game with better players around him.
 
Some players look infinitely better when surrounded by top players (see Torres) or when playing at the right club, or under the right manager.
 
Some players get better with age and experience, while others peak at a younger age and decline. Or some stagnate or almost disappear in the wrong environment, such as Mascherano at West Ham. Like many fans, I was distinctly underwhelmed by Frank Lampard until a few years ago, but then his game went up a couple of levels. Jamie Carragher was another whose game improved dramatically in his mid-twenties.
 
Not having heard of a player doesn't mean he's not good enough; Hyypia, Agger and Skrtel were not well-known to me. The same can be said of plenty of Arsene Wenger's best signings. Plenty of Liverpool's worst signings have been fairly high-profile.
 
Similarly, “he only cost a few million...” is another red herring. Yes, you're going to struggle to build a great team with £2m players, and yes, you'll get a few duds if you shop in the bargain basement. But there is always a good cheap option every now and then. Conversely, Shevchenko and Veron remain examples of how a stellar reputation and £30m fee ultimately provide no guarantees of quality and success.
 
Finally, and often most irritating, “he wouldn't get into United's/Chelsea's/Arsenal's side”. Because, as excellent as they are, either Rooney or Tevez wouldn't get into Liverpool's side, given that Torres is more prolific and, given his extra pace and height, the more natural striker/target-man. But that didn't stop Rooney and Tevez helping United win the title. Hargreaves, Carrick, Park, Fletcher and numerous other United midfielders wouldn't get into Liverpool's best side. Nor would Van der Sar. And so on.
 
The aim is to add ingredients that will improve Liverpool, either in small increments or, with the rare über-gem like Torres, in bold strokes, and not to obsess on whether or not they'd get into a rival team, which will almost certainly have differing strengths and weaknesses.
 
There will always be the worry that any player moving up to a big club will be anxious and overawed. Beyond checking his character –– has he had to handle pressure, and perhaps captain a club? How did he take to international football? –– there's not a lot that can be done to know for sure, unless he's already done well at a big club; but of course, you don't often get to sign players direct from other big clubs.
 
Which is kind of why I get irritated by the “but he only plays for...” argument. To some people, it's almost as if we should only be signing Messi, Ronaldo or Kaka –– as if those players were a) available, and b) would cost less than £60m each. The aim has to be to find the Messi of Newell's Old Boys Youth, the Ronaldo of Sporting Lisbon and the Kaka of Sao Paulo. And even then, these are incredibly rare talents, and if Liverpool do spot them, they won't be the only club.
 
But if you can't find or secure such talents, it doesn't mean that someone playing in a UEFA Cup team at 27 is too inferior to play for Liverpool.
 
And even if a signing has failed after two years, while it may not bode well it needn't be the end either. Three of Arsenal's best players this season were Hleb, Adebayor and Flamini, none of whom were pulling up any trees in their previous two, two-and-a-half and four seasons respectively.
 
Ultimately it's up to a manager to decide if he must cut his losses after a year (ala Gonzalez, Bellamy) or persevere with a player who is not quite delivering. Again, much of it is down to what the manager sees at close quarters.
 
So what areas of the team will be addressed this summer?
 
Width and pace are important elements, and a lot of fans crave tricky wingers going down the line. But width can just as easily come from full-back positions. And this is one reason why the Swiss right-back Degen has been signed. He is quick, good on the ball and delivers quality into the box. His career had stalled a bit at Dortmund, but he's a talented lad at a good age.
 
Cristiano Ronaldo is often cited as the greatest example of what Liverpool lack out wide, but he spends most of his time wandering all over the pitch, while Evra provides the real, unceasing width on United's left. Equally, on the other flank, Ferguson, like a lot of managers, tends to often go for more ‘steady' options –– players like Wes Brown (hardly an attacking great), Neville, Fletcher and Park, who will hold their position a bit more.
 
I do think that Ryan Babel has the attributes to get close to rivalling Ronaldo. Andy Gray, not noted for his Liverpool bias, thinks Babel is a wonderful player in the making; Gray knows that the majority of overseas players take time to adapt, and that a young player's first season is a steep learning curve. It took Ronaldo two seasons before he really started making a mark; until then he was seen as all step-overs and no end-product. He scored 4, 5 and 9 league goals in his first three seasons –– then 17 and 31 in his next two.
 
I think some fans get it into their heads that a team must have two out-and-out wingers, two attacking full-backs and, at most, one defensive midfielder. When dreaming, it's easy to forget the realities of balance.
 
There's also the issue of two out-and-out strikers, an obsession that is so outdated it's amazing how it still gets incessantly mooted. Again if we must compare with our rivals, we can see that none of them utilise two up front.
 
These days, 4-4-2 is almost always 4-4-1-1 or other variations on the theme. To work, it needs to be like Rush and Dalglish -- and that was to all intents and purposes 4-4-1-1.
 
Benítez speaks often about playing between the lines, and at times, that's all United do, with Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo dropping deep and then going forward en masse. Chelsea bought Nicolas Anelka, but only play him up front with Drogba in times of desperation; otherwise it's an either or situation, or with Anelka on the wing. And at Arsenal, Eduardo and Van Persie play behind Adebayor, while Bendtner is a last-gasp option.
 
Two out-and-out strikers also encourages long-ball tactics. Rather than play through teams, you look direct because the forwards are isolated from the midfield. For me, it's why Crouch and Torres rarely play together –– neither is as effective coming deep for the ball. Both are good at doing so, but you want Crouch using his height right up against centre-backs (and as he's not the quickest, he can't run from deep like Gerrard does), while Torres has to torment the last defender, and indeed, the entire back line.
 
The fact that Liverpool scored 31 goals from wingers/wide-midfielders this season suggests it's not an area in quite as desperate need of addressing as some think. But greater options in wide areas are clearly what the manager is looking at.
 
Whoever the manager signs, I will rest assured that there will be a very good reason behind it.